memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:SS Tsiolkovsky
launch date So, we have two different launch dates, from two different sources. The dedication plaque that was seen in the 1st season TNG episode "The Naked Now" gives a stardate of 40291.7, which equates to early 2363 and is a primary canon source; and the FASA RPG module "Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual", which gives a reference stardate of 2/8603, which equates to the late 2340s, around 2347, and is a secondary canon source. That wouldn't be much of a problem and we would just accept the episode as superceding the RPG, if it weren't for the VOY novel " ", in which an Oberth-class (yes, that's a redirect to this article) appears in the year 2353, which would support the RPG. So, two different ships? I'm tempted to say yes and transform the redirect into a page in its own right, detailing the ship from the novel, and moving the TNGOM's launch date info from the main body of the article into a background section as a discrepancy note. Same with the registry, actually, as that is superceded by the info on the plaque as well. Opinions? - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:27, October 20, 2015 (UTC) :The flaw in your logic is the desire to convert that to a 2363 stardate. Stardates have never been chronologically consistent and i'm not aware of any source that says that all 40xxx stardates MUST correspond to 2363. I knw some general translations have been offered in a few sources, but if the dates dont fit the other facts, i dont know why we are paying such dates credence. :If you ignore the computation, which should hardly be taken as definitive fact anyway, you have a ship commissioned in the 2340s and appearing twice, in the 2350s and 2360s. :I would say not to create a second article based on a flawed premise. -- Captain MKB 18:39, October 20, 2015 (UTC) ::Not my desire, actually. It says so in the infobox and article text:stardate 40291.7 equates to 2363. Are you saying that is in error? Should that be deleted, then? Along with the same kind of dating in an ungodly amount of articles on publications and corresponding events, places, vehicles, etc.? Because many of those never actually give a year, merely (if at all) a note that reads "takes place in between episodes/movies X and Y", with X and Y themselves never stating what year they take place in and its just extrapolated from the season number and stardate given. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:24, October 20, 2015 (UTC) ::Also, the reference stardates put TNG into the early 2300s, based solely on Data's comment in "Encounter at Farpoint" that he was part of the "class of '78" (notice that he never actually specified that he was talking about the year 78, or 2278). That was retconned in "The Neutral Zone" where he gives the then current stardate as "late in the year 2364". - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:30, October 20, 2015 (UTC) :Every episode of Star Trek with a stardate is assigned a basic year by the Star Trek Chronology -- but using stardates to determine other years when they contradict other data is not recommended. I don't see the need to do so, especially when it puts us in this position The plaque of the Tsiolkovski says "stardate 40xxxx" and someone has equated that to the year 2363, which is a piece of data with no source because someone added it based on assumption. --- Captain MKB 21:21, October 20, 2015 (UTC) :The references stardates are a special case, and we have refrained from calling them years for that reason -- they are a fairly cohesive set of stardates that have years associated with them that contradict canon. therefore we continue to treat them as stardates while disregarding those incorrect retconned years they are associated with. they still work as stardates, especially when you consider reference stardate 2/78 was aroound when Data would have graduated. -- Captain MKB 21:24, October 20, 2015 (UTC)